Post: #1

Link

Lee Kuan Yew, the Singaporean statesman and former Prime Minister, has passed away. Personally, I greatly admired the man; despite his authoritarianism he made a remarkable achievement in transforming his country into what it is today.

Here's the BBC's obituary.

Quote:With a sense of vision and a ruthless pragmatism, Lee Kuan Yew led Singapore as it transformed from a tiny island with no natural resources into a thriving economic success.

He successfully channelled the energies of Singaporeans to create what has often been described as an economic miracle, a mixture of private and state capitalism.

Mr Lee made Singapore prosperous, modern, efficient and practically corruption-free - and overseas investors flocked in.

We decide what is right. Never mind what the people think”

Lee Kuan Yew
But while he was admired for his economic success, many expressed concern over his record on human rights.

Lee Kuan Yew was born on 16 September 1923 in Singapore, the son of third-generation Chinese immigrants.

His upbringing had a strong British influence and his grandfather dubbed him Harry Lee, a name by which he was known through most of his early life.

Mr Lee went to an English school in Singapore but his further education was disrupted by the Japanese occupation, which began in 1942.

For the next three years, he was involved in the black market and also used his command of English to work for the Japanese propaganda department.

After the war he went briefly to the London School of Economics before going up to Cambridge, where he took a double first in law.

During his time in England, Mr Lee became a devotee of the BBC Home Service, forerunner to Radio 4, and took time out to campaign for a university friend who was contesting a parliamentary seat in rural Devon.

Mr Lee, a committed socialist from his student days, returned to Singapore where he became a prominent trade union lawyer.

Freedom of the news media must be subordinated to the overriding needs of the integrity of Singapore”

Prime Minister
In 1954, he was a founder and the first general secretary of the People's Action Party (PAP), a post he was to hold for most of the next 40 years

The PAP won the majority of seats in the 1959 elections and Singapore passed from overall British control and became a self-governing state.

Mr Lee took Singapore into a merger with Malaysia in 1963 but it was short-lived. Ideological tensions and a series of violent clashes between ethnic groups led to Singapore's expulsion from the federation to become fully independent.

It was a difficult move for Lee, who saw the alliance with Malaysia as a way of finally throwing off the area's colonial past. He described it as "a moment of anguish".

Commercial and military links with Malaysia were maintained, however, and Britain was encouraged to keep its base in Singapore for the joint defence of the island and Malaysia.

Mr Lee set about a huge programme of reform, designed to transform Singapore from the "cesspool of squalor and degradation" described in one contemporary account to a modern industrialised state.

Corporal punishment
To do this he maintained tight political control over every aspect of the city state, making it one of the world's most regulated societies.

Mr Lee detained some of his critics without trial, restricted the media and foreign publications, and arrested a number of journalists.

"Freedom of the press, freedom of the news media, must be subordinated to the overriding needs of the integrity of Singapore," he said.

He justified his actions by claiming that the newspapers were being financed by hostile interests abroad.

Mr Lee contended that in a developing nation some freedoms had to be sacrificed. The alternative to anti-communism was communism, and the West's concept of liberal democracy could not apply.

However, some of his critics argued that holding all the parliamentary seats should have provided him with enough security to avoid having to use such repressive measures.

As a committed anti-communist, he was accused of adopting a communist-style regime to further his policies although, unlike many communist regimes, the people of Singapore benefited financially from his rule.

From 1960 to 1980, Singapore's GNP per capita increased 15-fold.

I have never understood why Western educationalists are so much against corporal punishment”

Population control
Israel provided the model, surrounded as it was by hostile Arab states. "Like Israel, we had to leapfrog the rest of the region, and attract multinational companies," Lee said.

He understood the importance of building a good relationship with China, something that was helped by his friendship with the Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping.

Deng, who visited Singapore in 1978, expressed admiration for Lee's economic policies; Mr Lee was impressed with the reforms that Deng instituted in China.

Mr Lee introduced measures that stamped out the corruption that had been endemic in the former colony and embarked on a programme of low-cost housing and industrialisation to provide employment.

He also worked to pull together the island's diverse ethnic groups to create a unique Singaporean identity, based on multiculturalism.

He was a great believer in the efficacy of corporal punishment, having been on the receiving end himself while at school.

"I bent over a chair and was given three of the best with my trousers on," he later recalled. "I have never understood why Western educationalists are so much against corporal punishment. It did my fellow students and me no harm."

By the time he left office, corporal punishment was an intrinsic part of Singapore's judicial system being prescribed for more than 40 offences.

Mr Lee also took steps to control Singapore's fast-growing population, introducing a family planning campaign and, through the tax regime, penalising those who had more than two children.

Industrial Power
Later he tried to encourage more graduate women to marry by exempting them from the child control policies that still applied to their less well educated sisters.

Singaporeans were taught how to be courteous, how to be less noisy, when to flush the lavatory, and not to use chewing gum. There was no graffiti because the government said there should be none.

"We were called a nanny state," Mr Lee once told the BBC. "But the result is that we are today better behaved and we live in a more agreeable place than 30 years ago."

However, despite higher living standards and increasing affluence, younger voters were rejecting him in significant numbers and siding more with the opposition.

In January 1985, he refreshed his cabinet with young technocrats, and despite the economy going through a rough patch his party continued to win landslide victories at the polls.

When Mr Lee stepped down in 1990, after winning no fewer than seven elections, he was the longest-serving prime minister in the world.

He remained active in politics, taking a leading part in the campaign to persuade more Singaporeans to speak Mandarin Chinese as well as English.

During his time in office Singapore moved from being a developing nation to one of the foremost industrial powers in Asia.

There are those who believe that development was bought at the price of personal freedom and often cite Lee's penchant for suing media organisations who disagreed with him.

But Mr Lee stood by his record until the end. "I did some sharp and hard things to get things right. Maybe some people disapproved of it… but a lot was at stake and I wanted the place to succeed, that's all," he said in a 2011 collection of interviews.

"At the end of the day, what have I got? A successful Singapore. What have I given up? My life."

Oh yes, I'm so privileged you literally can't even.
Interested in joining the FFL? I tried (and failed).

Post: #2

So-so. Singapore is prosperous because it's an strategic place in one extreme of the Malacca Straits, and it's an American asset.

Post: #3

(03-22-2015 05:33 PM)Porfirio Rubirosa Wrote:  Link

Lee Kuan Yew, the Singaporean statesman and former Prime Minister, has passed away. Personally, I greatly admired the man; despite his authoritarianism he made a remarkable achievement in transforming his country into what it is today.

I don't think there's any need to say "despite".

The man's government worked out well. A government should be judged by its results. Singapore is a wonderful place now, up there with any other place in the world.

The idea that a government needs to roughly look like a Western Liberal Democracy in order to be a "good" one is shown here to be untrue.

Post: #4

(03-22-2015 05:45 PM)Luvianka Wrote:  So-so. Singapore is prosperous because it's an strategic place in one extreme of the Malacca Straits, and it's an American asset.

Having a high IQ populace never hurts, either.

Post: #5

Some quotes from the man:

"With few exceptions, democracy has not brought good government to new developing countries...What Asians value may not necessarily be what Americans or Europeans value. Westerners value the freedoms and liberties of the individual. As an Asian of Chinese cultural backround, my values are for a government which is honest, effective and efficient."

"Equal employment opportunities, yes, but we shouldn't get our women into jobs where they cannot, at the same time, be mothers...our most valuable asset is in the ability of our people, yet we are frittering away this asset through the unintended consequences of changes in our education policy and equal opportunities for women. This has affected their traditional role … as mothers, the creators and protectors of the next generation."

"I am often accused of interfering in the private lives of citizens. Yes, if I did not, had I not done that, we wouldn't be here today. And I say without the slightest remorse, that we wouldn't be here, we would not have made economic progress, if we had not intervened on very personal matters - who your neighbour is, how you live, the noise you make, how you spit, or what language you use. We decide what is right. Never mind what the people think."

"I ignore polling as a method of government. I think that shows a certain weakness of mind - an inability to chart a course whichever way the wind blows, whichever way the media encourages the people to go, you follow. If you can't force or are unwilling to force your people to follow you, with or without threats, you are not a leader."

Post: #6

The BBC is upset over the lack of personal freedom he is "responsible for."
Personally, when you create something from all but nothing such complaints are incredibly minor.

Singapore is an amazing place because of this man, and greatly inflenced by his travels. Hong Kong being an obvious inspiration but even some ideas from Switzerland and Israel. Cosmopolitan in its soul but has an unmistakable identity.

Post: #7

(03-22-2015 07:29 PM)Sonsowey Wrote:  

(03-22-2015 05:33 PM)Porfirio Rubirosa Wrote:  Link

Lee Kuan Yew, the Singaporean statesman and former Prime Minister, has passed away. Personally, I greatly admired the man; despite his authoritarianism he made a remarkable achievement in transforming his country into what it is today.

I don't think there's any need to say "despite".

The man's government worked out well. A government should be judged by its results. Singapore is a wonderful place now, up there with any other place in the world.

The idea that a government needs to roughly look like a Western Liberal Democracy in order to be a "good" one is shown here to be untrue.

Perhaps I chose my words poorly but I concur; liberal democracy is not necessarily what countries should strive for.

Oh yes, I'm so privileged you literally can't even.
Interested in joining the FFL? I tried (and failed).

Post: #8

Yes, democracy isn't the be all and end all. The guy did a great job. Same situation as Park Chung-hee. If you get an authoritarian leader with the right mindset you can make huge progress. Unfortunately you can't stop them if they turn out evil. Hong Kong still wins though for having a good economy and freedom.

Post: #9

(03-22-2015 10:38 PM)Phoenix Wrote:  Unfortunately you can't stop them if they turn out evil.

As if you can stop corrupt/evil/incompetent democratic leaders?

See: Latin America

Post: #10

Hell of a man.

Imagine ruling a tiny island nation whose neighbors hate you and you end up keeping the communists out and becoming a world economic power.

Post: #11

(03-22-2015 10:38 PM)Phoenix Wrote:  Yes, democracy isn't the be all and end all. The guy did a great job. Same situation as Park Chung-hee. If you get an authoritarian leader with the right mindset you can make huge progress. Unfortunately you can't stop them if they turn out evil. Hong Kong still wins though for having a good economy and freedom.

Not for long; time flies and they've only got till 2047.

Oh yes, I'm so privileged you literally can't even.
Interested in joining the FFL? I tried (and failed).

Post: #12

I was born in, and spent my formative years in Singapore. Lee Kuan Yew had stepped down as PM at the start of that decade, and even as a child, I recall the pervasive influence he held over society and politics.
I was reminded of such upon hearing of Malcolm Fraser's passing late last week. Both men came to power amid bitterly divided governance that reflected their respective communities, steered their countries through periods of monumental social progress, and even following their terms of office, continued to hold considerable influence amongst the newer generation of politicos and whose legacies are still deeply controversial.

While I generally am a believer in societal and personal freedoms, history has shown that Lee turned out to be the right person who came about at the right place and time, a ruthless fixer who saw what elements needed to be pulled together to consolidate Singapore's survival post-independence.

Detractors may rightfully point out Singapore's geographic and geopolitical good fortune, and the fact that it was already a developed port city-state. However, the country is an exception — along with Hong Kong — among the former British empire in not only preserving the wealth and development of its colonial institutions, but turning it into one of the most modern and wealthy of the former colonies.

Even though Lee believed the British were not inherently superior, at the end of the day, he was educated in British institutions and born to the English-speaking Chinese elite. He therefore saw the value in the systems they had introduced there, and rather than throw the baby out with the bathwater as invariably happened elsewhere after colonial rule, basically cobbled them together with structures of various influences.

Those of you who have travelled through South-East Asia would have noticed the massive disparity in infrastructure that really defines Singapore from even its next door neighbours of similar colonial heritage.

Post: #13

(03-22-2015 10:38 PM)Phoenix Wrote:  Yes, democracy isn't the be all and end all. The guy did a great job. Same situation as Park Chung-hee. If you get an authoritarian leader with the right mindset you can make huge progress. Unfortunately you can't stop them if they turn out evil. Hong Kong still wins though for having a good economy and freedom.

HK tops the world rankings for crony capitalism and its freedoms are already in the process of being eroded.

Really both of these places, HK and Singapore, may look shiny and impressive to outsiders but harbor a massive amount of all sorts of significant societal and economic issues, which people who actually spent significant time living there (and I don't mean in the capacity of a cushy expat posting) can easily attest to.

Post: #14

(03-22-2015 10:38 PM)Phoenix Wrote:  Hong Kong still wins though for having a good economy and freedom.

2014 Hong Kong:





To be fair, the government response wasn't terribly violent or brutal. Sure as hell didn't end up like Syria.

Post: #15

(03-23-2015 12:44 AM)atlant Wrote:  Really both of these places, HK and Singapore, may look shiny and impressive to outsiders but harbor a massive amount of all sorts of significant societal and economic issues, which people who actually spent significant time living there (and I don't mean in the capacity of a cushy expat posting) can easily attest to.

Which issues were you thinking of?

I would say the one that sticks out most in my book would be the overly sterile nature of the country.

Personally, I was one of the few who lived in landed (private) housing, but having spent time in public housing neighbourhoods, I was constantly struck by the degree of cookie-cutter similarity between them throughout the entire country. Urbanisation has covered the vast majority of the place but it hasn't brought along the same level of cultural and social richness you can find in other large metropolises around the world.

Growing up, I found childhood in Singapore to be rigidly regimented. While the education system there is pretty well-regarded, it's certainly very results-driven and the style of learning reflects that — you might learn the principle behind a particular formula (say, equations of motion), but aren't really going to go into the hows and whys of how it came about and how it might be applicable to a certain system; only this is how it's calculated and this is how it's performed for such an exam.
I find that that also reflects on the attitude of Singaporeans; maybe that might be a cultural thing but I've found them pretty plain to chat to. There's definitely a huge tilt among middle-class Singaporeans towards their work life, which they in turn try to sate with material creature comforts.

Post: #16

I've been lucky to have visited Singapore a few times over the past decades, and it's an amazing place. Everything is clean; there is no crime; it's crowded and dense, yet there's space for everything; and it used to be a trading port filled with Chinese fisherman 50 years ago.

If I could I'd move there in a heartbeat.

Post: #17

(03-22-2015 05:45 PM)Luvianka Wrote:  So-so. Singapore is prosperous because it's an strategic place in one extreme of the Malacca Straits, and it's an American asset.

This is a point people miss too often.

Yes a strong leader stepped up and made smart decisions (at least in terms of economic prosperity), but people miss the underlying drivers of growth there. It only even became anything in the first place because of it's location and deep waters.

In SE asia, I've heard locals say things like "I wish we'd been colonised by the British... then we'd be like Singapore!"

That's totally missing the point of why Singapore is what it is.

Post: #18

(03-23-2015 04:53 AM)RichieP Wrote:  

(03-22-2015 05:45 PM)Luvianka Wrote:  So-so. Singapore is prosperous because it's an strategic place in one extreme of the Malacca Straits, and it's an American asset.

This is a point people miss too often.

Yes a strong leader stepped up and made smart decisions (at least in terms of economic prosperity), but people miss the underlying drivers of growth there. It only even became anything in the first place because of it's location and deep waters.

In SE asia, I've heard locals say things like "I wish we'd been colonised by the British... then we'd be like Singapore!"

That's totally missing the point of why Singapore is what it is.

Melaka (in Malaysia) was an older trading post, yet they didn't become Singapore. It's at best a nice provincial UNESCO curiosity now. Georgetown/Penang had a big focus for the British administration, yet they didn't become Singapore. All over the world there are places that would have made fantastic locations for ports and trade centers, but didn't become jack shit. Nothing like Singapore, at least.

What to think of the Somali Coast? (Gateway to East Africa), Northern South America (the Guyana coast was hugely colonized) or Indonesia's Djakarta (colonial Indonesian metropole). I'm sure luck and historical circumstances played a big part in choosing the location of the SE Asian colony, but its post-colonial success had everything to do with how Singapore was governed, both planning and execution. Lee Kwan Yew, as a dictator, was responsible for both and did a great job.

Post: #19

^Interesting points. Post colonial success, I'd agree with you, to an extent. And you're right, there are a few other ports that could have been powerhouses but missed the chance. Still, like all economic success stories, the foundations are largely based in geography.

Somewhere like Jakarta could never have become Singapore - yes it was an export port, and yes better governance and investment would have left it in better standing than it is now. But it's not even close to an ideal trading post like Singapore, slap bang in the middle of several major crucial shipping routes. There are only a few places in the world that could have made entrepot trade work on such a large scale, and Singapore is one of them. Geography is why...

Also there were hidden advantages to being a small island city-state. Much easier to run a centralised "benevolent dictatorship" when you don't have tens of millions in the rural population far away from the centers of wealth to revolt and destabilise the country.

I'm not denying the governance wasn't economically excellent though. Some serious foresight and future planning to make the most of their 1-2 core advantages, and create new ones.

Post: #20

I'm ashamed to admit that until his passing I had no idea who this guy was or his place in history.

Post: #21

The Straits of Malacca is easily one of the most important shipping avenues in the world. Simply by luck did Singapore and the Keppel Bay have it working for them in having an natural protected deep water harbor. The deep tranches have kept its container port viable for decades as bigger and bigger boats are moving between ports. But not without its limits of course, major barges like Oil tankers can't make there way through and you will eventually see a cap in traffic just as which has happened to USA ports and the Panama strait due to the inability to take on the largest ships.

The harbor was its backbone, and securing investment dollars also didn't hurt either. Plus its easy to run pet projects with a small localized population. It would not be as easy to carry out this vision if you had the landmass of Germany or France for instance. To put it in perspective, Singapore is nearly half the size of Houston, and just a bit larger then the City of Chicago. And both Houston and Chicago have GDPs and economic outputs higher then Singapore, but what separates Singapore that as a national entity it can actually capture some of that output, plus Chicago and Houston easily spend (or waste) way money in service costs. I doubt Singapore is spending 39% of its budget in Police, but Chicago is, with most of its revenues coming from Federal grants after its local taxes (income, sales, property) versus actual revenues from all the economic activity the city generates.

It is very easy to micro-manage IMO a city-state that has the sovereign powers of a national state. You save costs with much less money being devoted to things such as defense, education plus health delivery is much cheaper and efficient to run, infrastructure costs are minimal, etc.

Nothing to take away from Yew, but you have to take a step back and look at Singapore for what it is. If I was dictator for a day I would prefer to run a City-State model in that size range of 300-600 square miles also.

Post: #22

Kosko,

Singaporeans are very well-behaved. That must save a county/city/country/whatever a ton, probably billions, of money.

They must have one magnitude less crime than US cities or Euro metropoles.

Post: #23

Meh, i'd rather go to Hong Kong than Singapore. I personally don't mind bubble gum and a little bit of graffiti. I never really cared for such a regimented society. Disney World with the death penalty.

This man's accomplishments are incredibly respectable.

I personally believe in the efficacy of corporal punishment too

Post: #24

(03-23-2015 07:20 AM)Maciano Wrote:  Kosko,

Singaporeans are very well-behaved. That must save a county/city/country/whatever a ton, probably billions, of money.

They must have one magnitude less crime than US cities or Euro metropoles.

True, but easy to be well-behaved when you're brought up in a comfort-padded state with high economic growth with everything taken care of and the government policy specifically engineered to create social harmony lol.

"Well behaved" is a consequence of prosperity and policy that they were able to create, but as kosko says the foundations for that prosperity are in geography.

Post: #25

(03-23-2015 05:07 AM)Maciano Wrote:  Melaka (in Malaysia) was an older trading post, yet they didn't become Singapore. It's at best a nice provincial UNESCO curiosity now. Georgetown/Penang had a big focus for the British administration, yet they didn't become Singapore. All over the world there are places that would have made fantastic locations for ports and trade centers, but didn't become jack shit. Nothing like Singapore, at least.

One of the best things he (perhaps unintentionally) did was keep Singapore from joining Malaysia. The British screwed that one up big time by making it an Islamic state; Singapore is secular, but very tolerant of all religions. Fast forward several decades and immigration policies favoring Islamic immigration have tilted the scales so that non-Muslims are finding it increasingly difficult to get by. This is why so many ethnic Chinese who are able to migrate to Singapore.

In addition to favoring Islamic immigration, Malaysia literally has a soft Apartheid system with deliberate set asides for ethnic Malays (who are largely Muslims) versus Chinese and other races. The Chinese kid who gets top scores in Malaysia will be shoved aside for a poorer performing Malay student; ditto for job opportunities.

But I guess since there's no white people around to blame, there can't really be any racism and as such, the SJWs aren't interested.